Skip to main content

Medical Discourse and Subjectivity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Management

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 615))

Abstract

Actors and users of the medical field (doctors, nurses, patients, medical students, pharmacists, etc.) are neither from the same social and professional category nor they have the same expertise level of the field. Their writings testify about this fact through the terminology used, for instance. Besides, the writings also show difference in the use of subjectivity markers. The automatic study of the subjectivity in the medical discourse in texts written in French is addressed in this paper. We compare the documents written by medical doctors and biomedical researchers (scientific literature, clinical reports) with the patient discourse (discussions from health fora) through a contrastive analysis of differences observed in the use of descriptors like uncertainty and polarity markers, non-lexical (smileys, repeated punctuations, etc.) and lexical emotional markers, and medical terms related to disorders, medications and procedures. We perform automatic annotation and categorization of documents in order to better observe the specificities of the studied medical discourses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.chu-rouen.fr/cismef/.

  2. 2.

    http://forum.doctissimo.fr/sante/douleur-dos/liste_sujet-1.htm.

  3. 3.

    Agence des Systèmes d’Information Partagés de Santé: http://esante.gouv.fr/asip-sante.

  4. 4.

    http://www.theriaque.org/.

  5. 5.

    http://www.cnhim.org/.

  6. 6.

    Lefff is downloadable from: http://atoll.inria.fr/~sagot/lefff.html.

  7. 7.

    Lexique 3 is downloadable from: http://www.lexique.org/telLexique.php.

References

  • Abdaoui, A., J. Azé, S. Bringay, and P. Poncelet. 2014. Feel: French extended emotional lexicon. Technical Report, Université de Montpellier 2. iSLRN: 041-639-484-224-2. https://www.lirmm.fr/patient-mind/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Site.Ressources.

  • Akdag, H., M. DeGlas, and D. Pacholczyk. 1992. A qualitative theory of uncertainty. Fundamenta Informaticae 17(4): 333–362.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Akdag, H., I. Truck, A. Borgi, and N. Mellouli. 2001. Linguistic modifiers in a symbolic framework. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9(SI): 49–62.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Akrich, M., and C. Méadel. 2009. Les échanges entre patients sur l’Internet. Presse médicale 38: 1484–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antheunis, M.L., K. Tates, and T.E. Nieboe. 2013. Patients’ and health professionals’ use of social media in health care: Motives, barriers and expectations. Patient Education and Counseling 92: 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augustyn, M., S. Ben Hamou, G. Bloquet, V. Goossens, M. Loiseau, and F. Rynck. 2008. Constitution de ressources pédagogiques numériques: le lexique des affects, 407–414. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basilico, J., and T. Hofmann. 2004. Unifying collaborative and content-based filtering. In International conference on machine learning, 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battaïa, C. 2012. L’analyse de l’émotion dans les forums de santé. In Actes de la conférence conjointe JEP-TALN-RECITAL, RECITAL, 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, W., W. Bridewell, P. Hanbury, G. Cooper, and B. Buchanan. 2001. A simple algorithm for identifying negated findings and diseases in discharge summaries. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 34(5): 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmielik, J., and N. Grabar. 2011. Détection de la spécialisation scientifique et technique des documents biomédicaux grâce aux informations morphologiques. TAL 51(2): 151–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelis, C., M. DeCock, and E. Kerre. 2004. Efficient approximate reasoning with positive and negative information, 779–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté, R. 1996. Répertoire d’anatomopathologie de la SNOMED internationale, v3.4. Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daille, B., B. Habert, C. Jacquemin, and J. Royauté. 1996. Empirical observation of term variations and principles for their description. Terminology 3(2): 197–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny, J., and J. Peterson. 2007. Identifying qt prolongation from ECG impressions using natural language processing and negation detection. In Medinfo, 1283–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, P. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and emotion 6(3–4): 169–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkin, P., S. Brown, B. Bauer, C. Husser, W. Carruth, L. Bergstrom, and D. Wahner-Roedler. 2005. A controlled trial of automated classification of negation from clinical notes. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 5(13).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gindl, S., K. Kaiser, and S. Miksch. 2007. Syntactical negation detection in clinical practice guidelines. In Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 187–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeuriot, L., N. Grabar, and B. Daille. 2007. Caractérisation des discours scientifique et vulgarisé en français, japonais et russe. In TALN, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goryachev, S., M. Sordo, Q. Zeng, and L. Ngo. 2006. Implementation and evaluation of four different methods of negation detection. Technical Report, I2B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabar, N., S. Krivine, and M. Jaulent. 2007. Classification of health webpages as expert and non expert with a reduced set of cross-language features. In AMIA, 284–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabar, N., and T. Hamon. 2009. Exploitation of speculation markers to identify the structure of biomedical scientific writing. AMIA 2009, 203–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadjouni K.M. 2012. Un système de recherche d’information personnalisée basé sur la modélisation multidimensionnelle de l’utilisateur. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris-Sud, Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamon, T., and A. Nazarenko. 2008. Le développement d’une plate-forme pour l’annotation spécialisée de documents Web: retour d’expérience. TAL 49(2): 127–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlocker, J., J. Konstan, L. Terveen, and J. Riedl. 2004. Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 22(1): 5–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hole, W., and S. Srinivasan. 2000. Discovering missed synonymy in a large concept-oriented metathesaurus. In AMIA 2000, 354–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 1995. The author in the text: Hedging in scientific writing. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching 18: 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassab, R., and J. Lamirel. 2006. A new approach to intelligent text filtering based on novelty detection. In Australasian database conference, 149–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 1973. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 458–508.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Levenshtein, V.I. 1966. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics. Doklady 707(10).

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, M., X.Y. Qiu, and P. Srinivasan. 2004. The language of bioscience: Facts, speculations and statements in between. In ACL WS on linking biological literature, ontologies and databases, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, D., B. Humphreys, and A. McCray. 1993. The unified medical language system. Methods of Information in Medicine 32(4): 281–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marco, C.D., and R. Mercer. 2004. Hedging in scientific articles as a means of classifying citations. In AAAI, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauranen, A. 1997. Hedging in Language Revisers’ Hands, 115–133. Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, R.E., C.D. Marco, and F.W. Kroon. 2004. The frequency of hedging cues in citation contexts in scientific writing. In CSCSI, ed. Computer Science LN, 75–88. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., G. Leroy, S. Chatterjee, J. Fan, and B. Thoms. 2007. A classifier to evaluate language specificity of medical documents. In HICSS, 134–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammad, S.M., and P.D. Turney. 2010. Emotions evoked by common words and phrases: Using mechanical turk to create an emotion lexicon. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 workshop on computational approaches to analysis and generation of emotion in text, 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namer, F. 2009. Morphologie, Lexique et TAL: l’analyseur DériF. London: TIC et Sciences cognitives. Hermes Sciences Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • New, B. 2006. Lexique 3: une nouvelle base de données lexicales. In Actes de la Conférence Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN 2006). Louvain, Belgique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasi, G. 2010. Issues in personalizing information retrieval. IEEE Intelligent Informatics Bulletin 11(1): 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, J. 1998. Terms in context, studies in corpus linguistics, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poprat, M., K. Markó, and U. Hahn. 2006. A language classifier that automatically divides medical documents for experts and health care consumers. In MIE 2006–Proceedings of the XX international congress of the European federation for medical informatics, 503–508. Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. 1993. C4.5 programs for machine learning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittman, R. 2008. Automatic discrimination of genres. Saarbrucken: VDM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruch, P., C. Boyer, C. Chichester, I. Tbahriti, A. Geissbühler, P. Fabry, J. Gobeill, V. Pillet, D. Rebholz-Schuhmann, C. Lovis, and A. Veuthey. 2006. Using argumentation to extract key sentences from biomedical abstracts. International Journal of Medical Informatics 76(2–3): 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagot, B. 2010. The Lefff, a freely available and large-coverage morphological and syntactic lexicon for French. In 7th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2010). Valletta, Malte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salton, G. 1991. Developments in automatic text retrieval. Science 253: 974–979.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, H. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of the international conference on new methods in language processing, 44–49. Manchester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastiani, F. 2002. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys 34(1): 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witten, I., and E. Frank. 2005. Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. 1972. A fuzzy-set-theoretic interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 2(3): 4–34.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, Q.T., T. Tse, G. Divita, A. Keselman, J. Crowell, and A.C. Browne. 2006. Exploring lexical forms: first-generation consumer health vocabularies. In AMIA 2006, 1155

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is partially funded by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) and the DGA, under the Tecsan grant ANR-11-TECS-012 (RAVEL project), and by the research programme Patients’ mind funded by the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme network (interMSH framework). We are thankful to the reviewers for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Chauveau-Thoumelin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grabar, N., Chauveau-Thoumelin, P., Dumonet, L. (2016). Medical Discourse and Subjectivity. In: Guillet, F., Pinaud, B., Venturini, G., Zighed, D. (eds) Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Management. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 615. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23751-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23751-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23750-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23751-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics